• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: <!-- -- -->
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: 08 Oct 2002 16:16:30 +0200
• In-reply-to: <200210081420.KAA29974@m...>
• References: <200210081420.KAA29974@m...>

On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 16:07, John Cowan wrote:

> Exactly.  "For compatibility" statements are "must" statements.
> "For interoperability" statements, OTOH, are only "should"s.

Except for W3C XML Schema which says:

[Definition:]   for compatibility
A feature of this specification included solely to ensure that schemas
which use this feature remain compatible with [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)]
and means "may if you want to really look old fashioned" :-) 

But W3C XML Schema is a different world by itself!

Eric
-- 
Freelance consulting and training.
                                            http://dyomedea.com/english/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• References:
  • Re: <!-- -- -->
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Next by Date: Re: Sky is falling again...
• Previous by thread: Re: <!-- -- -->
• Next by thread: Re: <!-- -- -->
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread